Police powers | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 50 minutes
These Police powers A-Level Law revision notes explain the powers of the police to stop and search, arrest and detain under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, usually shortened to PACE, together with the rights of individuals affected by those powers. OCR expressly requires police powers to be studied as domestic restrictions connected with Articles 5 and 6 ECHR. This lesson therefore links the domestic rules of PACE with the protections studied in liberty and security [Article 5] and fair trial rights [Article 6].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain police powers of stop and search under PACE 1984.
Explain the requirement for reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Explain the procedural requirements which accompany a lawful stop and search.
Explain the power of arrest under section 24 PACE.
Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest under section 28 PACE.
Explain important rights during detention and interview.
Explain the rights to legal advice and to have someone informed of the arrest.
Explain the possible exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.
Relate stop and search, arrest and detention to Articles 5 and 6 ECHR.
Apply the relevant statutory rules to factual scenarios.
Revision Notes 📚
Police powers and the OCR specification
OCR requires students to understand:
police powers in relation to Articles 5 and 6 to stop and search, arrest and detain under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including the rights of the individual.
This means the central law for this lesson is PACE 1984.
A police-powers question is therefore different from a general Article 5 or Article 6 question.
You need to know:
the specific PACE rule
then
how it affects the individual
and, where relevant,
how that connects with the Convention right.
OCR examiner reports repeatedly warn that candidates lose marks when they replace detailed knowledge of PACE with a general discussion of human rights.
Stop and search
Section 1 PACE 1984
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies section 1 PACE 1984 as giving police the power to stop and search:
people
vehicles
for prohibited articles in public places.
The power is not unlimited.
A lawful search depends upon satisfying the legal requirements, particularly the need for reasonable grounds for suspicion.
What may the police search for?
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies prohibited articles under section 1 as including:
weapons
drugs
articles used in connection with theft or burglary.
For an OCR problem question, identify what the officer is actually looking for.
A vague search with no identified prohibited article is much more vulnerable to challenge.
Public place
OCR's 2024 mark scheme states that section 1 applies in a public place, described as a place to which the public has access, whether by payment or otherwise.
This matters because police cannot simply assume that the section 1 power applies everywhere.
In the 2024 examination, Felix was searched in his front garden.
The mark scheme treated this as an important problem because the garden did not appear to be a place to which the public had access.
📌 Always check where the search takes place.
Reasonable grounds for suspicion
A central requirement for a lawful PACE stop and search is reasonable grounds for suspicion.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme explains that, under Code A, reasonable suspicion must have an objective basis.
It should therefore be based upon matters such as:
intelligence
information
the person's specific behaviour.
It should not be based purely upon personal factors.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme similarly states that suspicion must not be based on personal factors and should rely upon information, intelligence or specific behaviour.
Personal factors alone are not enough
Examples of weak grounds identified in OCR assessment materials include:
an officer's personal dislike or bias
reputation
previous criminal record
appearance alone.
In the 2022 examination, PC Davies recognised Charlie and described her as a "trouble-maker" before searching her.
OCR concluded that the search appeared to be based on the officer's personal bias rather than reasonable grounds.
In 2024, PC Smith relied partly upon Henry's reputation and criminal record. This was again treated as an inadequate basis where the objective description did not properly match him.
The exam principle is:
Suspicion needs an objective factual basis. A person's past or reputation is not enough on its own.
Matching intelligence to the person
Suppose police are told that a stolen item is being carried by:
a man in his forties
wearing a distinctive football scarf.
An officer stops a 25-year-old who is not wearing the scarf simply because the officer knows he has previous convictions.
The relevant application is:
the suspect does not match important parts of the information
the decision appears to rely on personal history instead
reasonable grounds are therefore doubtful.
This mirrors OCR's 2024 approach.
Procedure before a stop and search
Section 2 PACE 1984
Having reasonable suspicion is not the only requirement.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies section 2(3) PACE as requiring the officer, before carrying out the search, to provide information including:
their name
their police station
the purpose of the search
the grounds for suspicion.
OCR identifies Osman v DPP in support of this requirement.
This means a search can be vulnerable even where some suspicion exists if the correct statutory procedure is not followed.
Why the purpose matters
The person should know what the police officer is searching for.
A statement such as:
"I'm going to search you because I feel like something is wrong"
would not properly identify the statutory purpose.
The officer should be able to explain the relevant grounds and what prohibited article is being sought.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme specifically criticised PC Smith for failing to identify what prohibited articles were being searched for.
Extent of the search
OCR's 2024 mark scheme identifies section 2(9) PACE as restricting the search, in the circumstances covered by the mark scheme, to removal of:
an outer coat
jacket
gloves.
For OCR revision, the key point is that police search powers are controlled by statutory limits.
An officer does not have an unlimited power to conduct whatever search they choose simply because section 1 is engaged.
Written record
Under section 3(1) PACE, OCR's 2024 mark scheme states that a written record of the search must be made.
In a problem question, a failure to make the required record can therefore be part of the argument that proper PACE procedure was not followed.
Stop-and-search checklist
For a PACE stop-and-search scenario, ask:
1. Is it a person or vehicle?
Section 1 can apply to both.
2. Is the location a public place?
Check the facts carefully.
3. What prohibited article is being sought?
The purpose should be identifiable.
4. Are there reasonable grounds for suspicion?
Look for:
intelligence
information
behaviour.
Do not rely solely on:
appearance
reputation
previous convictions
personal dislike.
5. Has section 2 procedure been followed?
Has the officer provided:
name
station
purpose
grounds?
6. Has the search remained within its permitted scope?
7. Has the search been recorded?
This gives you a complete statutory structure rather than simply saying, "the police had no reason to search".
Arrest
Section 24 PACE 1984
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies section 24 PACE 1984, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, as the principal power of arrest relevant to this topic.
The mark scheme identifies reasonable grounds connected with whether a person:
has committed an offence
is committing an offence
will commit an offence.
A lawful arrest therefore needs a proper factual basis.
Previous convictions are not enough
OCR's 2023 examiner report identified a recurring misconception:
It is not acceptable to arrest someone simply because they have previous convictions.
The fact that a person has offended before does not, by itself, create reasonable grounds that they have committed the present offence.
The police must consider the current facts.
This is similar to stop and search:
past reputation ≠ automatic reasonable suspicion
Necessity
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies Code G PACE as providing guidance on the exercise of the arrest power and the necessity test.
For OCR purposes, remember:
An officer should not treat reasonable suspicion as automatically making arrest proper. The necessity of arrest must also be considered.
The supplied mark scheme does not require an exhaustive list of every possible necessity ground for this lesson.
What matters is recognising that lawful arrest requires both proper grounds and proper use of the arrest power.
Section 28 PACE: information on arrest
A person must know that they have actually been arrested and why.
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies section 28 PACE 1984 as requiring information concerning:
the fact of arrest
the grounds for arrest
the reason why arrest is necessary.
The relevant authority is Christie v Leachinsky.
Christie v Leachinsky
OCR repeatedly uses Christie v Leachinsky for the principle that a person must be informed of the reason for their arrest.
Failure to provide the necessary explanation can make the detention unlawful and may give rise to a claim in false imprisonment.
A vague comment such as:
"You know what you've done"
is not an adequate substitute for explaining why the person is being arrested.
OCR's 2023 mark scheme applied precisely this reasoning to Nina.
The person must know they are under arrest
A police officer should not simply take someone into custody informally without making their legal status clear.
OCR's 2022 scenario involved Zac being taken to a police station and put directly into a cell.
The mark scheme observed that this appeared to have been done informally rather than as an arrest, with none of the correct procedures being followed.
This is important because:
A person cannot simply be deprived of liberty while the police avoid the procedural safeguards attached to arrest.
Search following arrest
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies section 32 PACE 1984 as relevant to a search following arrest.
For this lesson, recognise that PACE regulates not only whether an arrest is lawful but also police powers following that arrest.
Do not confuse this with the separate section 1 stop-and-search power.
Detention
Arrest does not create unlimited detention
Once a person has been arrested, police powers remain subject to legal safeguards.
The OCR specimen mark scheme identifies:
the right to consult the Codes of Practice
review by a custody officer
the right to legal advice
the right to have someone informed.
This links directly with Article 5 [Article 5], because arrest and detention involve a deprivation of liberty.
Booking into custody
OCR's 2022 mark scheme criticised the treatment of Zac because he was taken straight to a cell without the proper arrest and custody procedures.
It specifically noted the absence of:
proper booking into the custody suite
an explanation of the grounds for arrest
information about rights.
This demonstrates why detention should not be analysed only by asking whether police originally had a reason to arrest.
The procedures during custody also matter.
Custody review
OCR's specimen mark scheme identifies the right to review by a custody officer as part of the protections available to a detained individual.
This connects with the wider Article 5 principle that detention must remain legally justified rather than continuing arbitrarily.
For the detailed Convention right, revise Article 5 [Article 5].
Rights of the individual
OCR requires police powers to be studied including the rights of the individual.
Several rights appear repeatedly in OCR mark schemes.
Section 58 PACE: right to legal advice
Under section 58 PACE 1984, a detained person has a right of access to a solicitor.
OCR's 2023 mark scheme explains that access may be refused in specified circumstances by a senior officer, for example where consultation would lead to:
interference with evidence
interference with witnesses
hindering recovery of property.
OCR identifies R v Samuel as an important authority.
The basic rule is:
A detainee's access to legal advice should not simply be refused because the police would prefer to question them alone.
R v Samuel
R v Samuel is repeatedly used by OCR in relation to access to a solicitor.
In the 2023 examination, Nina was wrongly denied access to legal advice.
OCR concluded that this could have a serious effect upon the fairness and lawfulness of the interview.
This creates an important link with Article 6, because access to legal assistance can be central to a fair criminal process.
Section 56 PACE: right to have someone informed
Under section 56 PACE, OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies the right of a detained individual to have someone informed of the fact of the arrest.
This is a separate right from access to a solicitor.
Do not merge them.
A useful memory pair is:
s56 = someone informed
s58 = solicitor
Appropriate adult
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies the right to have an appropriate adult present where the detained adult is mentally vulnerable.
In Nina's scenario, she had learning difficulties.
OCR concluded that she should have had an appropriate adult during the interview.
This links to effective participation and fairness under Article 6 [Article 6].
Caution and right to silence
OCR's 2023 materials identify the:
caution
right to silence
relevant rules under section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
requirements of Code C PACE.
The caution reminds the suspect of their position concerning silence and the possible consequences of failing to mention something later relied upon in court.
OCR also identifies Murray v UK in connection with the right to silence.
For this lesson, the important principle is:
Police questioning must respect procedural safeguards which contribute to the fairness of the later criminal process.
Welfare during interview
PACE safeguards concern treatment as well as legal advice.
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies Code C paragraph 12.8 in relation to:
breaks
refreshments
physical conditions during interview.
In Nina's case, the failure to give appropriate breaks or refreshments contributed to the conclusion that the interview was conducted unlawfully.
This shows that fair police procedure involves more than simply reading a caution.
Confession evidence
Section 76 PACE
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies section 76(2)(b) PACE in relation to confessions obtained through improper treatment.
It states that confession evidence obtained through oppression or in circumstances making it unreliable may be excluded.
In Nina's case, OCR identified:
coercion
bribery
oppressive treatment
as reasons why her confession would be vulnerable to exclusion.
This creates a direct link between:
police interview procedure
and
whether evidence can later be used at trial.
Other unfairly obtained evidence
Section 78 PACE
Section 78 PACE 1984 gives the court a discretionary power to exclude evidence where the circumstances in which it was obtained would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it should not be admitted.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme requires the judge to consider all the circumstances, including how the evidence was obtained.
This is especially important for the relationship between PACE and Article 6.
Body-camera evidence
OCR's 2024 examination applied section 78 to evidence obtained through the covert use of a police body camera during questioning.
The officer had also failed to caution Felix.
The mark scheme concluded that evidence obtained in these circumstances would be likely to be inadmissible under section 78.
This is a useful reminder:
The lawfulness of obtaining evidence and the fairness of using that evidence at trial are closely connected.
Consequences of unlawful police action
An unlawful stop, arrest or detention may have consequences beyond simply criticising police procedure.
OCR materials identify possibilities including:
false imprisonment
battery where unjustified force is used
exclusion of confession evidence
exclusion of other unfairly obtained evidence.
The appropriate consequence depends upon the particular unlawful act.
Do not assume every PACE breach automatically has exactly the same legal effect.
False imprisonment
OCR repeatedly identifies false imprisonment where arrest or detention is unlawful.
For example, Zac was placed in a cell overnight without proper arrest procedures or a proper reason for his detention.
OCR concluded that an unlawful arrest would make a false-imprisonment claim highly likely.
The key link is:
unlawful deprivation of liberty → possible false imprisonment
This also connects naturally with Article 5.
Police powers and Article 5
Article 5 protects liberty and security
Arrest and police detention involve the individual's liberty.
Article 5 therefore provides the main Convention connection.
The OCR specification expressly links police powers to Articles 5 and 6.
The key Article 5 issue is whether the deprivation of liberty:
has a lawful basis
falls within a permitted Article 5 ground
follows proper procedures
remains necessary and non-arbitrary.
Article 5(1)(c)
For ordinary criminal arrest, Article 5(1)(c) is especially relevant.
It permits deprivation of liberty in circumstances connected with:
reasonable suspicion of criminal offending
prevention of an offence
preventing flight.
You studied these Convention rules in Article 5 [Article 5].
PACE provides the domestic legal rules governing police arrest and detention.
The Convention provides the human-rights framework protecting liberty.
PACE and Article 5 work together
Suppose a person is arrested without reasonable grounds and is never told why they are being detained.
PACE issues include:
section 24 grounds
section 28 procedure.
Article 5 issues include:
deprivation of liberty
lawfulness
absence of arbitrary detention.
A strong answer may therefore use Article 5 to reinforce the significance of the PACE safeguards.
However, if the question specifically asks whether the arrest was lawful under PACE, PACE must remain the main focus.
Police powers and Article 6
Article 6 protects a fair trial
Police treatment before trial can affect whether the later proceedings are fair.
Important PACE protections connected with Article 6 include:
access to a solicitor
caution and right to silence
appropriate adult protection
fair interview conditions
exclusion of oppressive confessions
exclusion of unfairly obtained evidence.
OCR's 2025 Article 6 mark scheme expressly identifies PACE protections such as:
access to legal advice
recording of interviews
exclusion of unfair evidence
as part of the wider fair-trial framework.
Article 6 does not replace PACE
This is essential.
If the question asks:
"Was the police interview lawful?"
do not spend the answer giving a long account of every Article 6 right.
Instead:
apply the relevant PACE provision
explain the procedural failure
consider its effect on the evidence
link to Article 6 fairness where relevant.
OCR examiner reports explicitly reward this focused approach.
Article 5 versus Article 6 in police scenarios
Article 5 | Article 6 |
Protects liberty and security | Protects fair trial rights |
Particularly relevant to arrest and detention | Particularly relevant to interview and evidence |
Ask whether deprivation is lawful | Ask whether procedure and resulting trial are fair |
Connects with s24 and s28 PACE | Connects with legal advice, silence, appropriate adult and evidence exclusion |
May link to false imprisonment | May link to ss76 and 78 PACE |
The two can overlap but should not be merged into one general "human-rights" argument.
A complete police-powers method
For an OCR police-powers scenario, work person by person.
Step 1: Identify the police action
Is it:
stop and search?
arrest?
detention?
interview?
collection of evidence?
Step 2: Identify the statutory power
Examples:
s1 PACE
s24 PACE
s28 PACE
s56 PACE
s58 PACE
s76 PACE
s78 PACE.
Step 3: State the legal requirement
For example:
Section 1 stop and search requires reasonable grounds based on an objective basis rather than personal factors alone.
Step 4: Apply the exact facts
For example:
The officer relied only on the suspect's previous convictions and the suspect did not match the description supplied.
Step 5: Consider procedural safeguards
Was the person:
informed of the grounds?
told they were under arrest?
cautioned?
given access to a solicitor?
allowed to inform someone?
provided an appropriate adult if necessary?
Step 6: Consider the legal consequence
Could there be:
unlawful search
unlawful arrest
false imprisonment
exclusion under s76
exclusion under s78?
Step 7: Link to Articles 5 or 6 where relevant
Do this after applying the domestic law unless the question specifically asks about the Convention right.
Step 8: Reach a clear conclusion
For example:
"On the facts, the search is likely to have been unlawful under PACE because there were no objective reasonable grounds and section 2 procedure was not followed."
Stop and search application grid
Scenario fact | Main issue |
Search based only on criminal record | No objective reasonable grounds |
Suspect does not match intelligence | Weak reasonable suspicion |
Officer fails to give name or station | s2 procedure |
Officer gives no reason for search | s2 grounds and purpose |
Search occurs in private front garden | Public-place requirement |
No search record made | s3 |
Evidence obtained unfairly during questioning | Consider s78 |
Arrest and detention application grid
Scenario fact | Main issue |
Arrest based only on previous convictions | s24 reasonable grounds doubtful |
Person never told they are under arrest | s28 |
Person not told why arrest is necessary | s28 and Code G |
No caution | Code C and fair interview concerns |
Solicitor refused without proper basis | s58, R v Samuel |
Nobody allowed to be informed | s56 |
Vulnerable detainee interviewed alone | Appropriate adult |
Long interview with no breaks or refreshments | Code C welfare |
Confession obtained through oppression | s76 |
Other evidence obtained unfairly | s78 |
Person held without lawful arrest | Possible false imprisonment and Article 5 |
Example: unlawful stop and search
PC Amir sees Kai outside a shopping centre.
Kai has previous convictions for theft. Nothing else about his behaviour is suspicious. Amir says, "I know your history, so I'm searching you", but gives no station, purpose or grounds.
A strong application would identify:
the location appears to be public
section 1 can therefore potentially apply
however, previous convictions alone do not provide the required objective reasonable suspicion
there is no current behaviour or intelligence supporting the search
section 2 procedure has not been properly followed
the search is therefore likely unlawful.
This applies the same principles OCR rewarded in its 2022 and 2024 assessments.
Example: arrest and interview
Police arrest Maya because she was previously convicted of fraud.
They tell her only:
"You know why you're here."
At the station she asks for a solicitor but is refused without explanation. Maya has significant learning difficulties but is interviewed without an appropriate adult. After a lengthy interview with no break, she confesses.
Relevant issues include:
previous convictions alone do not establish reasonable grounds for the present arrest
section 28 procedure has not been followed
section 58 access to legal advice is relevant
an appropriate adult should be considered
Code C welfare protections are relevant
the confession may raise section 76 issues
use of the evidence may raise Article 6 fairness concerns.
This closely reflects the structure OCR used in the 2023 Nina question.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Reasonable grounds for suspicion | An objectively supported basis for suspecting the relevant prohibited article or offence, rather than suspicion based only on personal factors. | Apply intelligence, information and behaviour to the facts before deciding whether a search or arrest is lawful. |
PACE 1984 | The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the principal statute specified by OCR for stop and search, arrest and detention. | Identify the relevant section before applying the police power. |
False imprisonment | Unlawful deprivation of a person's liberty. | Consider where arrest or detention lacks a lawful basis or required procedure. |
Caution | The procedural warning connected with the suspect's right to silence and use of later evidence. | Identify failures during arrest or interview and connect them with Article 6 fairness where relevant. |
Custody officer | The officer associated in OCR materials with reviewing detention and custody safeguards. | Use when explaining the protections applying after arrest and during detention. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: If the question asks about police powers, lead with PACE, not a long essay on Article 5. OCR's 2022 report states that candidates who relied only on human-rights discussion gained less credit because the question required detailed understanding of the police powers themselves.
Examiner hint: Read the focus of the scenario carefully. In 2023, some candidates wrote extensively about stop and search even though the question tested arrest and interview. Those sections gained no credit because they were outside the question.
Examiner hint: Learn the section numbers. Stronger 2023 responses accurately used sections 24, 28, 56, 58 and 78 PACE and then applied them to Nina's treatment.
Examiner hint: Do not assume an officer's assertion is legally correct. OCR encourages candidates to test what a public official says against the actual statutory requirements rather than accepting the officer's version of events at face value.
Examiner hint: In stop-and-search problems, stick to the powers supported by the facts. The 2024 report criticised candidates who introduced unrelated search powers or arrest law when the question was confined to PACE stop and search.
Examiner hint: Statute can do most of the work. OCR's 2024 report states that detailed case law was less important than accurate knowledge of the PACE provisions in a stop-and-search question.
Examiner hint: Application means explaining why the factual detail satisfies or fails the legal rule, not merely repeating what happened. OCR repeatedly identifies unsupported assertions as a weakness in problem-solving answers.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Assuming previous convictions justify stop and search
Why this is incorrect: Reasonable suspicion needs an objective basis connected with the current circumstances.
How to improve: Look for current intelligence, information or behaviour.
Mistake: Forgetting the procedure under section 2
Why this is incorrect: A search is not simply about whether the officer feels suspicious.
OCR requires knowledge of information the officer should provide, including name, station, purpose and grounds.
How to improve: Remember:
Who → Where from → What for → Why
Mistake: Assuming section 1 applies anywhere
Why this is incorrect: OCR's 2024 mark scheme specifically required candidates to consider whether the location was a public place.
How to improve: Check the location before applying the power.
Mistake: Saying previous convictions automatically justify arrest
Why this is incorrect: OCR's 2023 examiner report expressly identifies this as a misconception.
How to improve: Apply section 24 to the present offence and present facts.
Mistake: Forgetting section 28
Why this is incorrect: A person must be informed that they are under arrest and why.
How to improve: Use Christie v Leachinsky where the reason for arrest is missing or inadequately explained.
Mistake: Mixing up sections 56 and 58
Why this is incorrect: They protect different rights.
How to improve: Remember:
s56 = inform someone
s58 = solicitor
Mistake: Ignoring the rights of vulnerable detainees
Why this is incorrect: OCR assessment materials identify the role of an appropriate adult for a mentally vulnerable detainee.
How to improve: Look for facts involving learning difficulties or vulnerability.
Mistake: Assuming unlawfully obtained evidence is automatically treated identically
Why this is incorrect: OCR distinguishes specific rules concerning confession evidence and the wider discretionary exclusion of unfairly obtained evidence.
How to improve: Consider whether section 76 or section 78 PACE is the relevant provision.
Mistake: Writing only about Article 5 or Article 6
Why this is incorrect: The OCR specification requires police powers under PACE in relation to those Articles.
How to improve: Use:
PACE rule → factual application → consequence → Convention link
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which section of PACE 1984 gives the police the principal stop-and-search power required for this OCR topic? [1 mark]
Answer: Section 1 PACE 1984. [1]
Question 2
Explain what OCR means by reasonable grounds for suspicion in a stop-and-search situation. [4 marks]
Indicative answer:
The suspicion should have an objective basis. [1]
It may rely upon intelligence or information. [1]
It may rely upon specific behaviour by the individual. [1]
It should not be based upon personal factors such as reputation or previous convictions alone. [1]
Question 3
Identify four pieces of information which OCR's PACE materials require an officer to give before a stop and search under section 2. [4 marks]
Answer:
the officer's name [1]
the officer's station [1]
the purpose of the search [1]
the grounds for suspicion [1]
Question 4
Explain the distinction between sections 56 and 58 PACE 1984. [4 marks]
Indicative answer:
Section 56 concerns the right to have someone informed of the fact of arrest. [2]
Section 58 concerns the detainee's right of access to legal advice or a solicitor. [2]
Question 5
PC Ellis sees Omar outside a railway station. Omar has previous convictions for burglary. He is behaving normally and there is no current intelligence linking him to any offence. Ellis says, "People like you are always carrying stolen goods", searches Omar and gives him no further information.
Advise whether the stop and search is likely to be lawful under PACE. [6 marks]
Indicative answer:
Section 1 PACE gives police a stop-and-search power for prohibited articles in public places. [1]
A railway-station area open to the public is capable of satisfying the public-place requirement. [1]
Reasonable suspicion needs an objective basis. [1]
Omar's previous convictions alone are insufficient. [1]
Nothing in his current behaviour or the information available provides an objective ground for suspicion. [1]
Ellis also appears not to have followed the section 2 information requirements, so the search is likely unlawful. [1]
Question 6
Police arrest Tyler after a burglary. The arresting officer says only, "You know exactly why we're taking you in." Tyler is taken to a police station and immediately placed in a cell.
Advise Tyler concerning the arrest and detention. [8 marks]
Indicative answer:
Section 24 PACE governs the relevant arrest power. [1]
The police need proper grounds connected with the suspected offence. [1]
Section 28 requires Tyler to be informed that he is under arrest and of the grounds for arrest. [2]
Christie v Leachinsky supports the importance of explaining the reason for arrest. [1]
"You know why" is inadequate to explain the legal basis of the arrest. [1]
Proper custody procedures and rights must also be observed after arrival at the station. [1]
If the arrest or detention is unlawful, Tyler may have a claim in false imprisonment and his Article 5 right to liberty is also relevant. [1]
Question 7
Nia has learning difficulties and is arrested on suspicion of theft. At the station:
she asks for a solicitor but is refused without explanation
nobody is informed that she has been arrested
no appropriate adult is present
she is interviewed for a prolonged period without refreshments
officers tell her that she will be released immediately if she confesses.
Nia eventually confesses.
Advise Nia about the lawfulness of her treatment and the possible use of the confession. [10 marks]
Indicative answer:
Under section 58 PACE, Nia has a right of access to legal advice. [1]
R v Samuel is relevant and the unexplained refusal appears improper. [1]
Section 56 concerns her right to have someone informed of the arrest. [1]
Her learning difficulties make the appropriate-adult protection relevant. [1]
Code C welfare requirements concerning breaks and refreshments are also relevant. [1]
The promise of release may contribute to an argument that the confession was improperly obtained. [1]
Section 76 PACE concerns exclusion of confession evidence obtained through oppression or circumstances making it unreliable. [2]
Article 6 fairness is also relevant because the police procedure affects Nia's ability to participate fairly in the criminal process. [1]
There is therefore a strong argument that the interview was unlawful and that the confession should not be admitted. [1]
Question 8
Three people encounter different police action.
Harvey is searched in a shopping centre because he resembles a detailed description of a person carrying stolen property. The officer explains the grounds and purpose but does not make the required record.
Imani is arrested entirely because she has several previous convictions. She is not told why she is being arrested.
Leo is lawfully arrested on reasonable suspicion of an offence but is then interviewed after his request for a solicitor is refused without any stated justification. The interview is secretly recorded and he is not cautioned.
Advise Harvey, Imani and Leo as to the lawfulness of the police action and any effect upon their rights. [20 marks]
Indicative marking guidance:
A strong response should analyse each individual separately and select only the relevant PACE provisions.
Harvey
Section 1 PACE concerns stop and search in public places.
A shopping centre accessible to the public is capable of satisfying the public-place requirement.
The detailed description may provide objective reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The officer also appears to have provided the relevant grounds and purpose.
However, section 3 requires a written record of the search.
Failure to complete the required procedure should therefore be identified.
A balanced conclusion should distinguish a strong basis for the search itself from the procedural failure.
Imani
Section 24 governs arrest.
OCR examiner material expressly states that previous convictions alone do not justify arrest.
There appears to be no objective factual basis for suspecting Imani of a present offence.
Section 28 also requires the fact and grounds of arrest to be explained.
Christie v Leachinsky supports this procedural requirement.
Her arrest therefore appears unlawful.
Unlawful detention may create a claim in false imprisonment.
Article 5 is relevant because Imani has been deprived of her liberty without an adequate lawful basis.
Leo
The original arrest may be lawful because the facts provide reasonable suspicion.
This does not make every later police action lawful.
Section 58 provides a right of access to a solicitor.
R v Samuel is relevant to improper denial of legal advice.
The failure to caution creates further procedural concerns.
Section 78 PACE allows the judge to consider excluding unfairly obtained evidence.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme applied section 78 where questioning was covertly recorded without an appropriate caution.
These safeguards also connect strongly with Article 6 and the right to a fair trial.
Higher-level responses should:
distinguish stop and search from arrest and interview
identify the relevant PACE provisions precisely
apply facts rather than merely repeat them
explain the legal consequence of procedural failures
use Articles 5 and 6 to support the PACE analysis rather than replacing it.
Question 9
'PACE 1984 gives the police significant powers, but its procedural safeguards are essential if those powers are to remain compatible with Articles 5 and 6.'
Discuss the extent to which you agree. [20 marks]
Indicative marking guidance:
A strong answer should analyse both the importance of police powers and the safeguards protecting individuals.
Relevant points may include:
The OCR specification requires police powers to stop and search, arrest and detain under PACE in relation to Articles 5 and 6.
Section 1 gives police an important power to search persons and vehicles for prohibited articles in public places.
Stop and search can assist crime prevention and investigation.
However, reasonable suspicion must have an objective basis.
Code A protects against decisions based solely on personal characteristics, reputation or previous convictions.
Sections 2 and 3 impose procedural requirements concerning information and records.
These requirements make police powers more transparent and accountable.
Section 24 provides a power of arrest where the relevant grounds exist.
Code G adds the requirement to consider necessity.
Section 28 protects the individual by requiring the fact and reasons for arrest to be made clear.
Christie v Leachinsky demonstrates the importance of knowing why liberty has been removed.
Unlawful arrest or detention may result in false imprisonment.
These protections connect directly with Article 5, which protects liberty and guards against arbitrary deprivation.
Detention also involves procedural protections, including custody review.
Section 56 protects the right to have someone informed.
Section 58 protects access to legal advice, supported by R v Samuel.
Vulnerable suspects may require an appropriate adult.
Code C protects the conditions and fairness of interviews.
These safeguards contribute to effective participation and the fairness of criminal proceedings under Article 6.
Section 76 allows confession evidence obtained through oppression or unreliability to be excluded.
Section 78 provides a wider discretionary power to exclude evidence where its admission would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings.
These exclusionary powers discourage unfair police practices and protect trial fairness.
On the other hand, PACE still gives police substantial powers capable of interfering with liberty and individual autonomy.
Safeguards are only effective if officers follow them and courts respond appropriately when they are breached.
OCR examiner reports repeatedly demonstrate scenarios where powers are abused because suspicion is based on personal factors, procedures are ignored or detainees are denied basic rights.
A strong conclusion may argue that police powers are necessary for effective law enforcement, but PACE's safeguards are crucial because Articles 5 and 6 require state power over suspects to be lawful, accountable and fair.
Higher-level responses should integrate specific PACE provisions with Articles 5 and 6, use statutory detail accurately and maintain a sustained argument about the balance between effective policing and individual rights.
Comments